Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Yorkshire Forward, the Regional Development Agency.
Sponsored by
Charged with improving the Yorkshire and Humber economy.
 
 
Friday, 16th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the EP Leeds First & County site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

HAY: Points challenge right – regardless of outcome



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 April 2008
One of Ken Bates' fundamental concerns about the treatment of Leeds United by the Football League and its members was the degree to which the club's 15-point penalty was founded on ignorance.
His suspicions surrounded the appeal hearing on August 9, when the representatives of 65 clubs voted to support the Football League's sanction against Leeds.

An overwhelming majority it might have been, but how many chairmen or chief executives entered the ballot with a full understanding of the facts of the case, Bates asked?

There was then, as there is now, a vast amount of information to digest – as shown by the prospect of the arbitrational review of United's penalty slipping into next week and a fourth day – and while certain individuals must have considered the case closely, others may have lacked the time or the inclination to gain a full grasp of the argument between Leeds and the Football League.

The 15-point deduction was announced on August 3, leaving six days until the appeal hearing for the facts to sink in.

The assembled crowd were addressed by both parties on August 9, but as one club chairman said to me at the time: "I can't really comment on whether Leeds deserved their punishment. I've got enough to deal with keeping my own club in order." You also have to bear in mind that the season was due to begin just 48 hours later.

United's arbitration is a contentious subject of conversation and several individuals have had their say this week, not all with the eloquence required to dismiss Bates' suggestion that the club's appeal in August was heard by an assembly whose lack of understanding was palpable.

Reflecting on the possibility that Leeds will regain their 15 points, Doncaster Rovers chairman John Ryan – who is not thought to have attended the appeal hearing personally – said: "What would happen next? Would Bournemouth, Luton, Rotherham – all the other teams that have lost 10 points – take on the Football League? I think it's a nonsense."

Ryan is understandably concerned by the idea that League One might change irrevocably on the say-so of a three-man legal panel, but his comments are missing the point and serve only to muddy the waters.

Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham are irrelevant factors in the debate over whether Leeds deserved their 15-point penalty. All three clubs were deducted 10 points on entering administration, as Leeds were last summer, but none have received the subsequent 15-point punishment which was imposed on United and – to date – remains unprecedented.

Bournemouth and Luton will be in danger of a second penalty if, as seems probable, both clubs leave administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), the perceived crime for which Leeds were punished.

But the Football League will not make a judgement on either club until it is first determined whether their treatment of United was lawful.
Put simply, Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham might see grounds on which they could challenge the deductions imposed on them, but their arguments would be alien to that of Leeds.

A 10-point deduction for entering administration was a sanction agreed by the Football League's members; whether the League have the power to impose a second sanction on clubs who fail to agree a CVA is a moot point, and the essence of the debate which is taking place in London this week. Given that an increasing number of insolvent clubs are struggling to implement CVAs, it is clearly a debate worth having.

The fact remains that Leeds were not docked 15 points. They were docked 25.

It can be argued with some justification that they exploited a loophole by incurring their initial 10-point hit when already relegated last season, but loopholes are there to be exploited and – ultimately – closed.

Speaking this week, Carlisle United's manager, John Ward, said: "Everyone has known the situation from day one and Leeds have even used it as a big incentive themselves. For me, Leeds should probably leave it."

Ward is a likeable character, and his comments could not be construed as malicious. But it is important to take issue with his last point.

Why should Leeds forego 15 points without first exhausting their claim that the penalty was unfair? And how credible is a competition where a club who have won 24 matches and accrued 82 points are seated in sixth place?

In the event that the Football League's decision is overturned, the nonsense of the whole scenario will be United's lowly league position.

The full article contains 760 words and appears in EP Leeds First & County newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 April 2008 10:20 AM
  • Source: EP Leeds First & County
  • Location: Leeds
 
Prev
1
Next
1

TraffordWhite,

Manchester 18/04/2008 11:00:15
Well said Mr. Hay another well researched and balanced article. Wish the same could be said about the rest of the written media who continue to publish absolute rot about the case.
2

Howard Flinn,

18/04/2008 11:06:11
Your point about the other league members not having a full understanding of the facts, when voting at the appeal hearing, has been borne out by the utter claptrap being spouted by Ryan, Ward, Martinez et al.

I have had countless conversations with other fans who clearly have no real idea as to why we were docked a further 15 point. (It's funny how thay have all forgotten about the 10 points that we were justly docked at the end of last season) All they come back with is that we cheated and we deserved them. "Well that's a fair and well put arguement, I concede!" NOT.

Leeds did (or should I say the Administrators) try to come out of the CVA. It was one of the major creditors, The Inland Revenue, who blocked it by way of a legal challenge.

You see, this has nothing to do with Leeds United. It is to do with HMRC's gripe with the Football League's rules regarding the payment of football creditors before the HMRC.

In essence, the Football League have put into place a rule, which is now impossible to adhere to. As HMRC will always vote against the CVA. Ask Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham, who all face the possibility of disappearing out of the Football League all together.

Surely the Football League's duty is to protect it's members. Not try to put them out of existence through it's own, now patently unworkable, rule?

Was the penalty handed down to Leeds United legal? I believe not. Once the 15 points penalty had been handed down to Leeds, the other members then voted, retrospectively, to sanction it. Is this not akin to making up the rules as you go along? Who gives Brian Mawinney the power to pluck figures from the sky and penalise clubs unilateraly?

I believe that this was a 'stich-up.' A personal vendetta between the Football League and Leeds United/Ken Bates. It doesn't matter that everyone hates Leeds, the law has to be seen to be adhered to and Mawinney and his cronies should be sacked once we are rightfully given our 15 points back.
3

S M T Western,

18/04/2008 12:22:19
A well thought out piece but why has it taken the YP all this time to say this? You also miss the point - it wasn't Leeds United that was punished it was someone else (guess who) who has gone out of his way to gratuitously insult and alienate everyone with whom he comes into contact.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.